On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:34:53PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:13:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:06:20PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Hm, yeah. So the brave new world will be that bugs won't be listed as > > > fully closed in unstable until all architectures are in sync? > > Point. Having a 'arch=source' option might be a better default then? If > > it's possible, I'd like an 'arch=*' or 'arch=all' option, though. > 'arch=source' is there for support for src=foo queries, but probably > won't quite do what you want because it deals with versions of source > packages. I could invent a couple of new pseudo-architectures for this > easily enough though: let's make 'arch=default' (or nothing) show the > bugs corresponding to the current source package associated with > whatever you're asking for, and 'arch=*' show the bugs open across the > board. Sounds good. > > > I think, then, we let the 'found' bugginess state win, then 'fixed', > > > then 'absent', so when listing bugs across architectures the buggiest > > > one wins. I've got untested code for that now. > > I've no idea what you mean here. > 0.1-1 s390: bug wasn't even reported here > 1.0-1 mips,mipsel: bug was found here, but not fixed > 1.0-2 alpha,arm,i386: bug was fixed here > ... then you want to report the bug as 'found', since that's the most > conservative (buggiest) option, etc. Aha! Yes, indeed. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature